Skip to main content
6:00 am
g.o.p. plan to end medicare as we know it. we protect education, energy and infrastructure investments. we have balanced deficit and debt-reduction planned. cutting spending by about $2 trillion. providing additional revenue by about $2 trillion. and let me conclude as i began by saying our revenue plan would be scored by the congressional budget office as being a $765 billion tax cut, because we are replacing revenue lost by extending other tax cuts. we're extending all the middle-class tax cuts and expanding middle-class tax cuts up to those earning $1 million a year. and we are fixing the alternative minimum tax. that costs $1.5 billion over ten
6:01 am
years. i don't consider that a tax increase at all, because you are reducing revenue that would otherwise come into the treasury under the alternative minimum tax, and i think almost all of us think is unfair, and replacing it with revenue by reducing tax expenditures, which even the most conservative economists in the country say needs to be done. mr. president, that is the blueprint that senate budget committee democrats are laying before our colleagues. we're under no illusions here. we know that this is a year in which the normal process is not being followed. we skwrupbd stand that there is -- we understand there is a leadership negotiation at the highest level. so we understand this is not going to be dealt with in the normal course of doing business. we understand there is a leadership negotiation. but we believe there are some ideas in this package that deserve consideration as those negotiations go forward.
6:02 am
mr. president, i thank my colleagues for their courtesy and their patience, and i look forward to this continuing debate as we take on the debt threat that looms over our nation. i thank the
6:03 am
6:04 am
6:05 am
6:06 am
6:07 am
6:08 am
6:09 am
6:10 am
6:11 am
6:12 am
6:13 am
6:14 am
6:15 am
6:16 am
6:17 am
6:18 am
6:19 am
6:20 am
6:21 am
6:22 am
6:23 am
6:24 am
6:25 am
6:26 am
6:27 am
6:28 am
6:29 am
6:30 am
6:31 am
6:32 am
6:33 am
6:34 am
6:35 am
6:36 am
6:37 am
6:38 am
6:39 am
6:40 am
6:41 am
6:42 am
6:43 am
6:44 am
6:45 am
6:46 am
6:47 am
6:48 am
6:49 am
6:50 am
6:51 am
6:52 am
6:53 am
6:54 am
6:55 am
6:56 am
6:57 am
6:58 am
6:59 am
in the new york times today there is an article that seems to confirm -- have you seen this article? >> no.
7:00 am
>> allegation that because of your personal life under pressure, can you state that was not the case? >> i care -- each and everyone of you, i think it is candidly not the case. it is not true. >> can you confirm that you have not been hacked? no one has suggested to you that your telephone number -- >> it was suggested to me, not in the current investigation. >> the operation -- [talking over each other] >> what about -- [talking over each other] >> -- which lasted a day? >> 2 shea. who told you this? the methods that i know are used and the impact it had to have on your pin number, in the period of 2005/6, don't exist anymore
7:01 am
but i know how -- [talking over each other] >> a number of other people. >> did it come up as a result of this behavior in investigation? [talking over each other] >> arrived from my own knowledge. there was a particularly difficult time. >> thank you. >> i have a question. i am frankly astounded at the incompetence being displayed here. [talking over each other] [inaudible] >> i would like to ask you following your apology, why didn't you try to get an interview from telegraph? >> going over the balance, given news international, take advice from press officers that was
7:02 am
fairly balanced. >> only a paragraph? >> always a balance, considered to be the most sensible outlet that it was. >> if it was your way -- to the committee? why didn't you issue a press release apology to all these actors? >> it is trying to get across in a way that people have no contact with and the press release is interesting. the advice that i get and others will give you, some times -- >> the message you are trying to get to us, you said that to review this inquiry, you have 11,000 pages and eight hours of consideration including
7:03 am
consulting -- investigating officers. is that correct? >> same answer. >> is that correct? >> she wants a yes or no answer. >> i want to give some context. [talking over each other] >> just answer the yes or no. your evidence to the telegraph said that you decide this inquiry didn't need to take it further. 11 of thousand pages of material. >> a qualified yes. as i explained in my previous answer, that helps in terms of nothing new after -- two people have gone to prison. i could go on. >> the point -- who is responsible? >> looking at them previously. >> who would use a -- >> looking at the previous legal advice and all the legal advice.
7:04 am
>> questions you didn't take -- >> we had the legal advice. >> you didn't take -- >> the answer shows -- [talking over each other] >> the answer is no. let's be clear what i was asked. [talking over each other] >> can we be clear on what was asked to do? anything new that we don't know about, we know about that. [talking over each other] >> is that correct? >> two or three days later they did the same. about ten days -- >> can i just be clear? goes directly to the next question i am sure you're going to ask. this supports -- as a result of that i ask the commission to join -- john yates to establish
7:05 am
the facts of that case and looking to that detail and i would anticipate making a statement today. if he asks you to look at the facts and details. >> yes. >> carrying on points for three years, that you signed 8,000 to make a decision. can i ask why it took three years before you decided to put it on a database? >> that is wrong. in july 20th, 2009, this documentation supported that issue, that i asked for clear instructions of what i wanted to happen with that material. that was the level of concern that people were riding in and concerned about -- i couldn't tell them. 11 days -- i think it is
7:06 am
july 20, 2009, to put that matter on a surgical system which would control that information. >> i am saying the telegraph is incorrect. >> i need to make sure -- [talking over each other] >> i will come back to you. >> the next police officer -- they you find it surprising people have a criminal offense and don't necessarily want to cooperate with the police. >> i don't. i will get back into what that is all about. it is very clear that production orders at this level of cooperation were noted. any level of cooperation provided by the person seeking information has to be absolutely certain and there was no indication. i have read those letters in the international and very careful
7:07 am
around that. >> people might find it surprising that those corporations -- if anyone else -- having committed criminal acts. >> that is not the case. it is not the case. it is the law. it scheduled production order. it is the lot about a big corporation which -- whatever it is, that is a lot. [talking over each other] >> you previously had to go through another investigation and pursued a very sorrow and robust investigation. can you explain the difference there and the difference here? >> if i can. it is a matter of coming up with the evidence that we should have had in 2005/6 and in 2009.
7:08 am
that has resulted in a huge investigation that they will be thinking about which is following the evidence. we simply were not provided that material when we should have been. >> how the wait until the evidence in this scandal -- you were not able to do so? >> there were a lot of inquiries. i am sure a lot of them now. there were a number. [inaudible] >> the process is not followed yet and the evidence -- never been criticized for in number of causes but that is -- >> i am going to hand you a list of names of all the guardian blog that sets out a number of people who have been warned by operations concerning the fact that their homes have been -- i want you to look at it and to see whether or not you recognize any of those names.
7:09 am
one of those names is the prime minister. while you look at the files was there any mention of the former prime minister's name or the names of the chancellor or exchequer who appear on that list and those who have been warned by operation greeting that their phones have been hacked? is that the first time you have seen that list of names? >> yes. i am sure this is one that is responsive. >> you didn't see that? okay. >> i wanted to make a concern that we all have, the low priority given this investigation by the excuse that appears to be given of a counterterror issue arising at the time of the al qaeda threat of trans-atlantic airlines and
7:10 am
we can understand that, i am a little concerned that when you sat at your desk in scotland yard in 2009 you didn't consider the report from 2006 which said investigations by the i t a and the police uncovered evidence widespread of organized under cover market, confidential personal information. many journalists looking for a story. in one major case investigated by the party a the evans that information supplied to 305 named journalists working a range of newspapers. were you aware of this? and the fact that there was the kind of industrial level happening going on at the time? >> yes. i was aware of the report. it was under ferry narrow reach.
7:11 am
[talking over each other] >> what is your question? >> in light of that, did you not think it might be appropriate to go back over the 11,000 documents, look at them and see if there was additional evidence that we would not associate with the two which were covered by mr. ellis's questions to see whether there might be additional of leads which could be followed up in a manner similar to the investigation? >> you talk about command decisions and what to do, you take these and consider them fully and what are the other issues? i will give you the reassurance i had. there was simply no reason at that time. a different standard of evidence, the decision taken. it wasn't a very good decision but it is as a result of new
7:12 am
information that clearly misled us. >> was there a feeling that you would meet the minimum necessary in order to show that you had in fact -- there was nothing new in this case because you have more important things to get on with? >> there is an element of that but if there's any new evidence -- >> you didn't even take advice. [talking over each other] >> by council. it was short one letter but came to the same conclusions. >> the questioning of ms. blackwood. did you speak to mr. haven and did you speak to peter clarke about their investigation? [talking over each other] >> given evidence -- i think this was -- >> he said everything was fine. we had a decent conservation --
7:13 am
the decision in terms of how it was managed. i think i referred in the letter to a range of issues before hand. that are used before coming -- >> mr. michael? >> the new investigation from new evidence and you got that respect or from the general concern that would indicate the need to take a fresh look at the evidence. in september of 2010 you were unable to tell me if the investigation was taking place at that time. was there? >> we were escaping the information that had been published in the new york times on september 3rd last year. again, it was a very interesting -- in terms of, that was managed in terms of the level of cooperation we had. >> was there a lot of investigation? >> it was a skateing study for
7:14 am
advice and terms of whether they thought there was a requirement of the investigation of the letter of a last paragraph of my letter saying they knew then but did not meet the eventual -- >> looking at your letter, a lot of people were under the impression that in 2009 and again in 2010 was to review the 2006 investigation. your letter to us on the eighth of july emphasized that you did not conduct fit 2006 the evidence. did you explain exactly what you and your team did do in 2009? >> yes. i think to this committee, hy made it very clear that it is in the transcript that that is what i did in terms of the approach that i took. there was a range of points,
7:15 am
touched on if you want to look at that document to see that. it was around the range of the investigation, it was about 10 or 12 points that i went to on that day. that was the approach we took then. in 2010 and the potential new information, one of the new investigating officers. >> you talk again about new evidence but isn't it the case that in 2006, really should have been pursued at that time? >> that may well be the case. >> the review, we want to know what the evidence was available to you when you carried out the review, dr. irving had bags full of evidence that came to --
7:16 am
[talking over each other] >> was all of that evidence read by three courts? >> my understanding is it was bad up and it was individually considered and also my understanding is council did that -- >> actually all of the material -- >> problematic as far as wanting to address it. it was there -- can't really account for that because it wasn't on my watch. it had been reviewed for relevance by counsel during the course of the original investigation. it gave me a level of insurance it had been looked at. >> can you tell us if the material that was available in 2006 disclosed the names of any other people who were subject to phone hacking or any other journalists who appeared on the
7:17 am
indictment subsequently held -- >> a huge amount of paper. maybe once the others can answer but i can't. >> why not? >> i don't know what was in 11,008 pages. [talking over each other] >> a very important question. what the evidence meant to you. >> if i can -- you can't possibly know the names of 11,000 -- [talking over each other] >> did you ask the police officers carrying out the investigation if there were any other people whose names were not mentioned in the trial or any of the journalists who were involved in hacking? >> any of it -- [talking over each other] >> we are crossed that. [talking over each other] >> let's be clear so that we are not across that. this is -- [talking over each other]
7:18 am
>> were you aware of any other victims of phone hacking or journalists involved in pro hacking, which is in your house in 2006 which was not disclosed. >> the only aspect of was aware of in my memory is the name neville which was a reporter -- [talking over each other] >> which has been raised before the full session. that is the only other aspect i can recall. that too was subject to the appearance of that name and its relevance and the evidential standard was also reviewed. and he gave a very clear written confirmation that just the name neville does not mean a threshold required to it. >> pursuing evidence, as mr.
7:19 am
burbank or any other reporter been interviewed? >> i have excepted that he ought to be and again others will talk about what has or has not. >> can i take it to parliament pushing this back on your shoulders? are you aware that some people whose names turned up here in 2006 took out private signatures themselves and discovered through that the police had things in their possession that -- [talking over each other] >> in the judicial review under way with several people testing in the court will have to wait. >> one of the difficulties for everybody here is you don't seem determined that we would expect.
7:20 am
when you said that one of those sampled problems was the corporation -- international, how do you reconcile that with your remarks in your interview where you said anybody would have done the same if the court found out what they were doing? you were a bit dismissive. >> it is my experience, if you go to -- [talking over each other] >> another example. >> the remainder is you said you were going down to -- [talking over each other] >> i just don't think something like 4,000 people working -- >> such a huge -- >> a don't think you expect me
7:21 am
with the span of command that i have on terrorism detection, don't expect me to slightly my time to go down examining and participating -- there's a command structure underneath and 99% of the time -- >> most people we think in view and terms of -- [talking over each other] >> i haven't looked at examples of the materials. >> you would have worked more than mediums which is something we didn't do. looking at fresh new evidence. >> i always said potentially hundreds of people affected, private investigator had been able -- >> when you said there was damage to this did you mean that in part it would be easier to damage -- the example you meant -- >> from the decisions i have
7:22 am
made in terms of our known now for new than what i know now, they would have been different. it does look damaging. i am very happy to hold my hands up. but don't take that as a mission. >> do you feel that your behavior has damaged -- >> i'm not saying that. i don't think my behavior -- [inaudible] >> in terms of -- i wish we could turn the clock back. >> we would all wish to turn the clock back but specifically on this point you mention your article the trust you felt was at risk because of what is happening and the way -- [talking over each other] >> given what you have said and the apologies you may have you considered your position as to whether or not you should continue in your present
7:23 am
position bearing in mind you accepted this has been a fundamental error in the way in which this was conducted? >> i have not offered to resign. if you are suggesting i should resign for what news of the world has done, that is unfair. >> i am putting to you what we have been asked to put to you. [talking over each other] >> of very quick question because we have another witnesses. to be released and do his other work in counter-terrorism and can spend all morning the way we would like today. can i go through a quick question from each member? >> you said in answer to request an put by several colleagues that you didn't handle this the same way you did previous ones because you were just following the evidence. but here you have 11,000 pages.
7:24 am
it was obvious that there was more to than the two people in the vault so you didn't follow the evidence. >> i felt the evidence had been followed. >> you knew there were 11,000 pages sitting there. it wasn't just about the two people you repeatedly mentioned because those two people involved were involved in royal and national security. it wasn't a humdrum case. 11,000 pages you knew dozens if not hundreds of other people were involved. national security implications. you were still having dinner with journalists. is that right? the question is having dinner with news international despite the fact you haven't conducted a thorough inquiry. >> i believe ahead done all that was required in july of 2009. [talking over each other] >> i am not happy now because i
7:25 am
know things went very different. [talking over each other] >> have you ever receive payment from anybody relating to this information you had? >> that is -- and amazing question. i never received any payment. >> have your officers received payment? >> it is highly probable in light of the allegations being investigated they were very careful. that has happened. we are an organization of 50,000 people. we have always said from time immemorial that some of those people would be corrupt. an ongoing investigation, which we didn't comment on -- >> the second question. we involve any discussions with the mass media or anyone else where there were concerns about
7:26 am
regulating international news of the world or any other outlet and never find any record of such discussion. >> given your statement there are corrupt people, and you don't know who they are and one of the major casualties of this scandal will be confidence in the police, do you think that procedures need to be improved significantly? >> the method invested time and effort and has done so since 1996 when i have been involved -- part of that -- in terms of we can always learn from the investigation. as i said lately, i said lately that organizations -- we want to invest properly.
7:27 am
if it becomes an issue, of course that is something we will review. >> try to restore public trust -- >> i think regrets are always good stuff. [laughter] >> you were the person brought in to do the reviews, not the initial investigation. looking at the scale of the wrongdoing which has been revealed, spread of it, the approach that has been taken in some quarters, how do you think the public should feel about this? >> they should feel extremely reassured that the matter has been investigated. how they should be feeling now was the question. they should be reassured that the new investigation of a different command structure with significant resources attached to is following the evidence as
7:28 am
they have received from news international. i can't repeat that often enough. >> i would suggest with regard to the relationship of the international association on record, that you received any payment from that organization. it is not built on that metropolitan -- describe to us a very competent officer and went home to say when he was being questioned about this position, he has to make his own decision whether -- you replied do you really feel -- and honest man about this. you are an honest man. [talking over each other] >> that there is constant avenue from the public? >> hi passionately want to do the right thing and the right
7:29 am
thing in this case was to hold my hands up and regret -- i do feel those sectors were handled under my watch. that is not in my view -- a matter in this case. i know that the gdp who was consulted about the initial advice provided is now instructed by news international. on reflection -- [talking over each other] >> on reflection, what share of responsibility should be involved by the cpa to investigate this issue? >> there's some collective responsibility because i have always said and done will say again the difficulties -- this investigation was framed -- there is a collective responsibility.
7:30 am
operational decisions are -- we have to stand up and tell around that. it is a collective responsibility. >> you said that the question of the future is a matter for our conscience. what about your conscience? >> my conscience is clear. i have accepted where we could have done better. my conscience is clear that i expressed regret. if you can't express regret and make occasions over the course it is pretty sad. >> with hindsight do you think it is a mistake to talk about there being very few victims of hurricane in terms of people given the new access carrying out -- >> it goes back to vote legal advice and it is -- take a great favor in that but that is why i
7:31 am
framed the response. >> do you think it was right to be categorical went actually you couldn't possibly have known because you haven't reviewed all the evidence? >> i went with the legal advice. >> your comment on the previous inquiry is what? if you thought your inquiry was for what about the previous inquiry? >> i can -- all i can say is the inquiry is shaped to make it manageable in the context of what was happening at the time. >> but no news whether it was good? >> in terms of the victims last time you were here concerning mr. bryan have all the victims been contacted? >> the hole victims strategy -- >> with respect to the evidence you gave last time you talked about the mobile phone companies
7:32 am
being contacted. they came to us and told us they received no instructions. not about the current operation. but when you were investigating. >> the range of correspondence, which in retrospect may not have been followed the way it should have been. i know one company absolutely followed the instructions to the letter and others didn't. that is a matter that needs to be reviewed. >> as usual when we ask you to give evidence you turn up to give evidence. however it is the view of the committee that your evidence today is unconvincing and there are more questions to be asked about what happens when you conducted this review. you may be hearing from us again. and not regard this -- we are quite -- if i could summarize, your apology is to the victims. and to all the other victims. your apology to this committee
7:33 am
and your apologies for any damage. is that right? >> that is right. >> thank you for coming. >> could i call peter clarke? >> the opposition labour party legislators called for the resignation of john yates. the police commissioner who just finished his testimony. up next, peter clarke, former assistant police commissioner. >> apologies for keeping you waiting half an hour. you have the benefit of sitting within the committee compound so you heard what was being said. could you explain to us your role in the investigation prior to the investigation that was done by the tee a? >> i am glad to have the opportunity to be here today. this is the first time anyone involved in the or original
7:34 am
investigation has had the opportunity to meet with this committee and it is certainly the first time i had the opportunity to publicly express any of these issues. [inaudible] >> responding to my invitation. unlike other witnesses you said you came into new evidence and i am grateful. i'm too a large extent regarding on the memory of the events of six years ago. i left the police three years ago. if it would help the committee i will make some opening remarks to set out my role in many of these issues. >> i think the committee are praise of this but if you could tell me an answer, what was your role and when did it began? >> my role in this particular investigation began in december of 2005 when i was head of the anti-terrorist branch of the metropolitan police and carried the role of national coordinator of terrorist investigations meaning i was responsible for
7:35 am
leading the investigation in the u.k. and against british interests overseas. i was approached in december of 2005 by the head of the protection department -- and the members of all households expressed concerns that matters were finding their way into the press and working out how this happened and one of the concerns was it may be that voice mails were being accessed. obviously my mind goes to the security to of the royal family. people trying to ascertain their movements. because of the sensitivity and obvious national security implications, my department in the anti-terrorist branch would take on the investigation. >> what was your relationship with andy hayman? where did he fit into the overall investigation?
7:36 am
was he the top man? >> in essence yes. ultimately the commissioners responsible for everything that happens. [talking over each other] >> there are many layers. my role as head of the anti-terrorist branch was to set a strategy for the investigation and set its parameters and andy hayman was the assistant commissioner. >> how often would you report to him about the things you were doing? >> on a daily basis talking about a range of things mostly to stay connected to what was going on with the terrorists. >> if we could believe that and talk about the issue you call out for you heard the evidence of assistant commissioner john yates and the concern of this committee reading newspapers. we can't understand how the investigation conducted by the metropolitan police did not look at the files and paperwork which would have revealed the names of
7:37 am
individual people including former prime ministers, the exchequer, members of parliament, members of a royal family including john yates, andy hayman 11 and yourself. were you one of the people being hacked? >> it would have been news to me. >> we are clearing you out of the picture. [talking over each other] >> you were not one of the people, very helpful. andy hayman said he was on the list. >> not to my knowledge. >> this was produced that the operation weeding was involved in? are want to make sure you get it. you heard evidence from assistant commissioner john yates that he thought he was being hacked. is that the first time you heard this? >> i think it is. i don't recall any previous records to john yates being hacked. i may have read it in the newspaper. i don't know. [talking over each other] >> you don't know about individual people but you had it
7:38 am
filed a number of names. is that right? >> not at the beginning of the investigation. those names came in after the arrest in august. >> you heard the concern of the committee that what should have happened in that investigation is that all those names should have been thoroughly investigated and also should have been looked at. you were not in a position where john yates had to do his review and subsequently to see this industrial scale of the number of victims of hacking. are you amazed that these names came forward or not? >> i am not amazed. i am not surprised by anything that the media might indulge in or anything day by day. there is a process i hope to describe in a statement to you which took us to the point of the original notification to me through the point of arrest and
7:39 am
subsequent action. with which describes how the parameters were arranged or reached the first investigation which was strictly to investigate who it was who was potentially hacking into voice-mails. and how the decision was reached after the arrest not to conduct an exhaustive analysis with the huge amount of material. >> we are concentrating on the evidence we receive from john yates who has said his review of the evidence, in 2009, was 4. to you as a result of what you have seen in the newspaper, what you said in answer to my question that maybe this is indulgent, are you questioning these e-mails and questioning the information that comes out of the media that this information is wrong or have you accepted that people like gordon brown and others have had their phones hacked? >> i have no idea. [talking over each other]
7:40 am
>> you were completely shocked unlike john yates who was absolutely shocked and this inquiry was not good. you were very satisfied with the inquiry you conducted? >> i have said that at all. i share the shock of everybody the depths to which the media has sunk, some of the activities we learned about. i only learned about that last week. i am sure like everybody i am utterly appalled. i hope this goes without saying. >> to you agree with the statement of john yates that when you tried to get information, we all understand what was current in the public the main at the moment that it resulted in e-mails from news international, where they cooperative with you when you were conducting the inquiry? john yates was very clear they were not cooperative with him.
7:41 am
>> they were not cooperative. if they had been, if they had meaningful cooperation we would not be here today. as simple as that. >> will you tell us the time line you will share with us? >> try to memorize it? my only caveat is quite a long time ago. if i rely on memory, and -- if i say something which turns out to be not absolutely right i am relying on memory, then i would not want to be accused of misleading the committee. >> i would want you to be in that position. tell me how many pages you have. >> two. >> read fast. >> i shall read very fast. are have covered the fact that in 2005 and began the investigation into the possible hacking, mobile phone companies
7:42 am
were approached and it became apparent that voice-mails were indeed being intercepted in a previously unknown way. the voice mail gain from intelligence were quite good for the editors of the news of the world and a private investigator. legal advice was sought from the head of the special crime division. so far as is known the legislature wasn't tested as being applied to the kind of activity and covered by our investigation. there were potentially offenses on section i of the investigation and section i of the computer abuse act. the summary only offense was limited by punishment and there were uncertainties about specifics to prove the case might arise as facts presented in this case. the offense was tryable on indictment of punishment. we were advised the offense could certainly be improved if the interception occurred before the intended recipient had access to the message but beyond that the area was untested.
7:43 am
the parameters of the investigation were very clear. they were to investigate the interception of voice mail to the role of household to prosecute those responsible and take all necessary steps to prevent the type of abuse in the future. the investigation would also attempt to find who else was responsible for the interceptions. the reason i decided this should be so tightly drawn was a much wider investigation would inevitably take much longer to complete. this would carry to my mind two unacceptable risks. first the investigation would be compromised and second vote much wider range of people who we were learning were becoming victims of this activity would continue to be victimized when the investigation had its course. this would go on for many months but to my mind this would be
7:44 am
unacceptable. after they were arrested, we entered into correspondence with be ceo solicitors and newspapers ltd.. we ask for a huge amount of material in connection with small care --mulcare's dealings and whether he worked for news of a world leader in the records provided in detail by telephone systems in the news of a whirl offices and much else besides. on september 7th, 2006, we got a letter from the police stating the investigation is attempting by all persons that may be involved including further conspiracies. we were assured the newspapers finishing the investigation that we were in possession of all relative documentation and materials we were entitled to was limited and reality very difficult materials produced. why we were able to prosecute the specific offenses under investigation we were unable to
7:45 am
spread the inquiry further with a new international because of their refusal to cooperate more broadly. you heard conversations about these issues. following the arrest of governor mulcare there were electron a formats' received of 7,000 pages. as news international was not able to offer any cooperation the only avenue into a wider investigation would have been through that material. we considered whether there should be an exhaustive analysis of this material and decided against it the following reasons. by senior colleagues -- [talking over each other] >> i was brief as to the inquiry -- >> these are other people you were talking to? >> the hierarchical structure, jim white, a range of other
7:46 am
colleagues. first, given the wider context of counter terrorist operations posed a threat to the british public. when set against the criminal course of conduct of privacy that no physical harm to the public, i could not justify the huge expenditure of resources this would entail a over protracted period. the team of offices were detailed to examine the documents for further evidence and identify potential victims where there might be to security concerns. secondly the second reason we decided not to do a full analysis, the original objectives of the investigation could be achieved and the following measures. the high-profile prosecution and imprisonment of a senior journalist through a national newspaper, secondly collaboration on the mobile phone industry to prevent such an invasion of privacy in the future and third briefings to government including the home office and cabinet office to let
7:47 am
this activity to assure national security concerns could be addressed. and there was a liaison with the information commissioner's office. in addition there has been close cooperation from the mobile phone industry. after the arrest the strategies were put in place involving police officers in forming certain categories of potential victims and the mobile phone company identifying and informing others to see if they wanted to contact the police. i have since learned this strategy did not work as intended. as the committee has learned. that is a matter -- also of course utterly regrettable that as a result of the decision not to conduct a detailed analysis of all the material received, the victim that are had no idea was target of the hackers did not receive the support they deserve the sooner and the victims of crime. finally, any accounts of the investigation would not be
7:48 am
complete without reference to the counter terrorist context that the time. since 2002 there has been a steady rise in the number of terrorist prosecuted in the u.k.. london has been attacked twice in 2005 giving rise to the largest criminal investigation carried out in the u.k.. by early 2006 we were investigating the plot to blow up trans-atlantic airlines in mid flight and those responsible were arrested on a ninth of august of 2006. by the middle of 2006 the anti-terrorist project, 17 lot operations related to terrorist plot but the reality was some of these were not being investigated because they were not asked to do so. i have been asked whether we could return to the months after the governor's arrest. the answer is no. if we were embroiled in london and the attacks in the hague market in glasgow we had service
7:49 am
above the court cases coming through in some years that in 2007 led to the conviction of dozens of people of terrorist related crimes. it would not be feasible to as the departments using their own scarce resources in a case where they had high the convictions and there was no certainty of obtaining convictions given the untested nature of the legislation in these circumstances. i can no longer speak for the metropolitan police but i am confident that i know the officers who were involved in the 2006 investigation are the -- looking forward to the opportunity to set out in detail to the forthcoming corey the calm forensic environment and integrity of activity with which they went about their duties in 2006. i redirect if there was any cooperation of what we know to the lines we would not be here
7:50 am
today. >> did you at any stage think of issuing a press statement or released to the media saying news international would not cooperate? at any stage? >> certainly i couldn't possibly do that in a court case coming to fruition in 2007. i don't think a did. >> the regret you expressed in your statements were very helpful statements today as to to whom you regretted. are you apologizing to the victims? are you just saying you regret the strategy was not carried out? who is the regret focus -- >> has to be the victims of the crime. it always is. in this case because of the victim strategy which was put in place the last week of august of
7:51 am
2006. happened actually operated as intended. clearly there are people who found they had been the victims of the hacking who deserved no sooner but most importantly the victims of crime who found the most distressing things about what has been happening to their private lives and the invasion of their privacy and for the record -- >> you had no hospitality to you or any connection whatsoever with news international? >> during my time serving in the metropolitan police there were occasionally organized by the director of public affairs meetings with the crime report association which is right across british media print and broadcast and there were occasions of meeting groups of reporters, perhaps one week. >> not private dinners?
7:52 am
>> absolutely not. >> you have been a distinguished senior officer of counter-terrorism but i find your efforts to date--particularly the parameters of what was said which might explain one or two things. in the normal course of policeing if an offense is discovered and it is discovered further pending associations of that police normally investigate a further offense. if they stop someone from driving when qualified in committing perjury you invest that as well. >> it is not about driving. it is an entirely different category. the only thing you could a line this to would be enormous fraud where you focus the investigation at its early stage and decide what potential offenses might be and try to prove those offenses and put parameters around the
7:53 am
investigation, completely normal investigative process. the first indication was there was something -- that is what we would investigate. >> did you suspect there was something else taking place involving other journalists? >> yes which is why we pursued this as far as we could through correspondence. >> you told us one of the reason why you didn't choose to investigate further to set these parameters was you were concerned the victims would continue to be victimized if it was investigated. >> yes. what i was trying to say is if we were trying to mount an investigation into every potential victim which was beginning to emerge from our work with the companies that would take months of attention or even years to the point where we would go to the -- >> is it more or less likely effect would be victimized if the case was investigated to find out who was being
7:54 am
victimized? >> you are missing the point. we cannot know the full scope of how many people were being victimized. clearly not just the initial parameters of the investigation. if we were to try to conduct a full investigation to find out the bread of this it would take attention enough. we could not possibly go to the victims in advance of an arrest faith because that would become public knowledge sooner or later particularly bearing in mind the nature of some of the victims. we have done that and it became public knowledge. clearly those who are responsible could have lost or destroyed evidence. what i am trying to say to you here is if we let this run on for months it is completely unacceptable breach of individual privacy would have continued to. that was simply not -- >> we all have the benefit of hindsight but that would benefit
7:55 am
catastrophic decisions because it has allowed a network of spying and corruption to continue untouched. >> i have to disagree with that. as i said the usual objectives -- the assertion that had you done this earlier we would not have had this -- >> i have to disagree that the wave of spying and corruption has continued untouched. trying to investigate and stop was the illicit access to voicemail. as far as i am aware by and large after 2006 it may be completely since 2006 because i worked with the mobile phone companies on getting protective security arrangements around voice mails change but voicemail hacking no longer continues. >> i have to tell you when a mobile phone companies came after a critical -- they were waiting to inform the victims and you never told them to inform the victims.
7:56 am
>> talking about two things here. if we are talking about protective measures to stop the voice mail hacking, that was not entirely successful. to the victims -- >> i have already conceded the victims strategy did not work as intended and that is a matter of great -- [talking over each other] >> decided not to undertake an exhaustive analysis in the inquiry from the limited surge -- does that mean it wasn't ready? >> reporter: one objective was to find that the evidence relevant to the charges but the second was to make sure our obligations in terms of disclosure under criminal
7:57 am
procedure investigation -- was done by police officers as was done by counsel and third to the potential victims -- [talking over each other] >> all the material was right? >> i can't say whether all of it was right but it was manuel -- we didn't have the technical -- [inaudible] >> i can't be certain. [talking over each other] >> running the inquiry? >> i was. >> the question is surely a no-brainer. have the read those documents? >> not necessarily. they look for particular objectives. not to do an exhaustive analysis of every name or phone-number and so forth. >> even though some of them were very important people? >> those people were notified. >> this is the final question.
7:58 am
>> the question -- the previous witness also in that study of the material did you find the names of the victims of hacking over journalists involved so quickly on the indictment? the victims of crime in this circuit? >> i was not aware any of the victims on this side. >> and of the people or individuals? >> there are other people were there were indications they had been whereas because only telling someone had been a victim of hacking through technical data through the phone companies. if the voice mail was accessed, they were reported. >> we did find other names. >> yes. >> this context of this issue, the contact case which was fraud
7:59 am
with the individual showing the need to cooperate does that not make you in the position that perhaps -- rather than to affect this any further? >> i was as certain as i could be. >> what convinced you to take it further? >> the law. i think has been explained many times before this committee there was correspondence between us and news international. the letters were put together in consultation. the replies came through the lawyers on behalf of news international and i know the people who met at the time were looking at this were very frustrated at finding themselves in a legal impasse. >> how you find exhaustive analysis ha? >> as i said the only way given a complete lack of cooperation
8:00 am
with news international the only way to get into this would have been to do an exhaustive analysis of all that material that i have already explained to the range of other activities going on at the time. terrorist offenses that were not justified. ..
8:01 am
>> couldn't you have looked through the 11,000 material where you could have forced them to give you more material? >> i'm sorry. i'm trying to take your point, sir. could you ea peat that? >> surely you could have looked, skimmed, even, the 11,000 pages to see if there was any news, international journalists and then used that information to force these internationals to open up. >> it's possible. i'm not sure that skimming 11,000 pages is an exercise that could be undertaken. >> why didn't you notice mr. bryan that his phone had been hacked? >> to the best of my knowledge, i didn't know mr. bryan's phone had been hacked. >> and why didn't you alert gordon taylor -- >> ghawz by then -- because by then i'd retired from the police
8:02 am
service. [laughter] >> [inaudible] >> thank you. mr. clarke, you said that you didn't have an exhaustive search of the evidence. why didn't you do an exhaustive search of a sample of the evidence, and then you would have seen the iceberg underneath that you were dealing with? >> just trying to reflect on that. um -- >> it's a simple question. >> it's a simple question, and there's no simple answer, because it's inviting me to consider why didn't i do part of a job? you either do the job properly, or you don't do it at all. >> you department do it properly. >> well, the decision at the time was perfectly reasonable, and i made the decision, and as i said recently, it was a bad decision, and people can make their judgments. >> do you think you would have done the job better had you done an exhaustive search of a sample of the evidence that you had?
8:03 am
>> it may or may not have made any difference at all. i can't say. it's pure speculation. >> mr. evans? >> you say, mr. clarke, that the law stopped you because you were up against, you and scotland yard were up against an international, global organization. the law doesn't allow fishing expeditions, but what the law does allow, what the law would have done to support you, as in the yard, would have been if you had obtained sufficient evidence to justify a reasonable suspicion. you would have been able to obtain access, and no amount of high-paid lawyers would have been able to stop you. so the question is there were 11,000 pages sitting that were not properly reviewed. now, i suggest, could have been reviewed, should have been reviewed and would have disclosed ed that would have -- evidence that would have allowed the police to obtain legal access to news international and maybe others.
8:04 am
>> sir, i've already explained why i made the decision that i did at the time. >> members of the royal family including the prince of wales, prince harry, prince william, you were tasked with royalty protection, were you not, ultimately? and this is a matter of relating to royal protection as far as you knew it at the time, your investigation. it wasn't a routine investigation. wouldn't it have been an obvious thing to do, to investigate the matter fully? >> sorry, you said, sir, that i'm tasked with royalty protection ultimately. >> well, did you have any -- i thought you told the committee that you were originally tasked to investigate this matter because you had oversight over royal matters? >> no. i understand you now. i thought you were referring to the fact that i was commander of the royalty department back in the -- >> no. but you had responsibility of the royalty protection, did you not? >> no. >> anyway, would it be
8:05 am
responsible -- [inaudible] should you not -- >> would you not have disclosed further information that would have then given you legal grounds to obtain access? >> i don't know if it would have -- we didn't carry out the exercise. >> during your investigation did you at any time speak to the dpp? >> no, i didn't. >> so you had no contact with lord mcdonald? >> no. >> who in your team sought the legal advice that was necessary for you to continue? >> the senior investigative officer -- >> and who was that? >> that would have been either detective chief superintendent williams or detective superintendent sertes. >> and you know for a fact they did consult the dpp? >> i know they consulted the ground prosecution. i doubt the dpp was personally involved. >> well, we have a letter from the dpp saying we have
8:06 am
oversight -- yes, lots of people have oversight. >> yes. dr. halverson. >> i think you've been very straight with this committee, and it's always nice to hear that. i think the error that was made was drawing the boundaries far too narrow to start with, too much a focus on royal and high security, and i suspect you would agree with hind sight it could have been -- certainly had i realized how big this was when i wrote the chairman last year, we might have been able to do even more work. >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> thank you. but my question is, actually, during 2006 the information commission allayed not just one, but two command papers to the house of commons, to parliament. privacy, which i think was referred to earlier, and privacy now -- [inaudible] this was a major issue. and in that it talks about 305 journalists were identified as customers driving the illegal
8:07 am
trade of personal information. and it goes on in the follow-up report -- >> [inaudible] >> i will. to detail a huge range of newspapers. the daily mail, news of the world was only fifth on the list. did that start any alarms? you knew this was a high priority of the information commissioner. did that not then make you think that you linked -- >> i have to admit in 2006 i was not aware of those reports. i suppose my focus was on terrorist issues. >> should somebody else have been aware to put two and two together? >> i think someone else probably was aware of them, but they -- >> they didn't put two and two together. >> clearly, two and two were not put together if they were there to be put together. >> [inaudible] at the senior level, mr. clarke, but wouldn't it be wise to make an enemy of news international? >> no. i can't agree with that. >> are you really saying that
8:08 am
which you've already described it, a huge global organization with media outlets and what it can do made absolutely no deference -- difference whatsoever? >> if there'd been any feeling that you describe, i think it would have been likely my office would have gone to the news international building and faced the hostility and the obstruction that they did on the -- >> sorry. could you speak up? >> yes, sorry. i kept -- >> obstruction -- sorry. this hostility and obstruction which surprises no one, i think even more now. surely, if anything, that would be a discouragement to probe further knowing the dogs of war could be used without hesitation. >> i understand what you're saying, mr. winnik, but perhaps i'm arrogant enough to think i
8:09 am
had a reputation as a dogged detective, and that might make me more determined rather than less. >> one more we. you said that you socialized with reporters, crime reporters. no one would have expected otherwise. that seem to be perfectly above board. but you didn't have any socializing with the most senior people with news international. would that be true of other colleagues, senior colleagues? >> i can't speak to what they do. >> you with respect aware one way or the other? >> no, absolutely not. >> thank you. linda blackwood. >> i think it would be helpful to understand the scale of your investigation and exactly where it ranked in your day-to-day work. would this -- was this investigation the only information you were conducting at the time? >> no. i think i've explained under my oversight there were some 70 investigations within the metropolitan -- and across the country as well.
8:10 am
>> and where did it rank in terms of priority? >> um, you can't place a rank on it. >> well, just give us an assessment. bottom third? top third? >> i could never list. what i could say is that it certainly would not compete with any other investigation where there's a threat to the safety of the public. >> right. and how many officers were assigned to the investigation? >> it varied according to what stage -- >> average? >> there's no such thing. i'm not being awkward -- >> at the beginning of the investigations. >> the beginning of the investigations partly because of the sensitivity of it and partly because it was a very focused investigation, we kept it very tight, and i would say there were perhaps ten to a dozen. then we borrowed officers from other parts from specialist crime directorates, and can be on the day of the searches, there were probably as many as 60 involved in it. >> so about 10-13 officers working exclusively and supplemented -- >> at various times. and other means of support such
8:11 am
as analysts, intelligence officers. >> and what was the situation of that investigation from beginning to end? >> from the beginning would be december 2005 until the conviction which i believe was in january 2007. >> and do you feel that the message you were getting from the command leader was that you should not be prioritizing this information, particularly in the context of all the other terror-related activities you were involved in? >> no, absolutely not. it was my decision. >> thank you. steve mccabe. >> mr. clarke, i guess what troubles most of us is that those 11,000 passengers of -- pages of material becomes a scene for any investigator. was it the fact that your officers were asked to concentrate exclusively on looking for connections that --
8:12 am
involving goodman and, therefore, to disregard any other connections they saw? or is there some technical way you can review the material only looking for goodman and -- [inaudible] which would in some ways screen out any possible connections? because i think that's ooh what people -- that's what people understand. we know this was a minefield and m some might have escaped everyone's attention. >> absolutely. i think it's a mistake, if i may say so, mr. mccabe, to think that we were focusing solely on goodman and mckay. news international makes that very clear. i read an extract from it this morning. we were looking to find any other conspirators as well. if evidence had been forth coming, we would have pursued it. >> [inaudible] he should have used another
8:13 am
journalist, so it must have been there. >> there in all the material. >> yes. >> but as i say, we didn't do an exhaustive analysis of that material. >> well, i'm trying to figure out why that was. were your officers supposed to disregard it when they saw someone else, or was there some -- [inaudible] by which it was reviewed? i can't figure out how all these names are coming up an experienced police officer going through that material couldn't have said, oh, there's that name again and again and it's connected -- i don't understand that. >> what was happening and i think i'm right that in saying the initial stages about 28 people were actually informed that they'd potentially been the victims of hacking as a result of the initial review of that. i agree, the analysis of the 11,000 pages was not comprehensive. >> yes, i think we've got that. >> okay. >> and final question from mr. michael. >> yes, in that context and i understand you've made a very
8:14 am
clear statement in terms of what your priorities were in terms of combating terrorism and the lower border of putting the sort of big administrative task out, was any consideration given to stripping out the nonterrorrism-related aspects of your command and putting these sorts of responsibilities which could be seen as a distraction in those terms to other parts of the specialists, crime directorate or whatever? >> well, i suppose you could say this type of investigation was never really called business -- it came to us because of the national security issues. >> well, that's my point. >> having got to that point, and forgive me, could i have tried to pass the investigation to somebody else? i think the realistic point, and be i certainly thought about this at the time, and it's reflect inside the decision logs from the time, is that, well, the previous two years i'd
8:15 am
already been stripping out other parts of the metropolitan police to support the anti-terror branch in a whole series of anti-terror operations. a lot of other serious crime had gone on and been investigated because of the demand i was placing on them. i took the view that it would be completely unrealistic given we would be heading toward a prosecution to then go to another department and say we've got a prosecution running, we have a huge amount of material here which needs analyzing. we don't know given the advice around the uncertainties whether there'll be further offenses coming from this or not. would you like to devote 50, 60, 70 officers for a protect e period? i took the judgment that would be an unreasonable request, so i can't make it. >> in your answer you have indicated other aspects were stripped out of the command in order to give you the maximum
8:16 am
resource for dealing with terrorism, and with the obvious benefit of hindsight, might it not have been better to do this activity as well? >> i don't honestly see where i could have shifted it to. it would have been a case of trying to invite people to lend me more officers, and to be frank, i think i tried their patience be over the last few years. it would have been a very difficult request to have been made to colleagues -- >> but it wasn't pushed up the trees of responsibility? >> >> to be honest, there wasn't much of a tree above me, and i know this is something i discussed, but, of course, andy hayman wales. >> mr. clarke, you've been very helpful to the committee in giving evidence, but we remain puzzled that at the time of the investigation that this information was not properly
8:17 am
analyzed for whatever reasons, whether it's resources or judgment that you made. but you came right at the start with your regret of certain things that were not done. could you remind the committee, because you seem to be quite defensive in what you had done in saying you did the best that you could. what was the regret that you mentioned in your original statement? >> quite simply, people who have suffered enough already through being the victims of crime now find that because of the activities of, basically, the news of the world and maybe others, who knows, that their suffering has been increased. >> as a result of something you didn't do? as a result partly of the fact that the victim strategy which we set in place in august 2006 appears not to have worked as we had intended. >> and had that worked, you would have been very satisfied with your inquiry? >> i would have been satisfy with the the inquiry that we conducted. obviously, as a former investigator i can't be happy
8:18 am
because there was material in our possession which subsequently turned out to contain important information. but i come back to the point if only news international had seen fit to cooperate at an early stage. >> yes, we got that message. thank you very much for coming, mr. clarke. we're most grateful. could we call our next witness, andy hayman. you're able to stay if you wish, mr. clarke. >> the next to testify, andy hayman. he was assistant police commissioner at the time of the first investigation into phone hacking. >> the we're extremely grateful. i wrote to you, um, on the 37th -- 27th of june asking you a series of questions about your involvement in this matter. you have not replied to this letter, so i'll take this evidence as being your reply. so we hope to cover some of the -- >> could i just clarify that, of course? this. >> yes. >> having got the letter, that gives the improsecution i just
8:19 am
completely blanked it. that's not the case. i've spoken to your office, asked for some stays on that, i've got copies of e-mails to answer those questions, and, of course, we spoke on the phone only two weeks ago to clarify that. the last thing i asked you was are you happy we haven't corresponded, and this will be -- and you were content with that. >> yes. that's exactly what i said. in a shorter version. [laughter] >> just wanted to clarify that. >> we accepted that, but could i start because i know members of the committee will ask this, and i will just start to clear it out of the way. >> sure. >> your relationship with news international, and it's no surprise that the committee will want to ask you about that question. >> yep. >> when did you start your negotiations with news international that you would write a column and become an employee? >> i retired in '08, and i was approached by several newspapers to write, and something i've always wanted to do. it's a sort of a boyhood
8:20 am
aspiration. it was a choice between being a journalist or being a cop. turned out both of them were probably funny choices. and having considered approaches by several newspapers, i chose to go with the times. and i believe, actually, the sort of final agreement was around, i retired on paper in april of '08, and i think i agreed in july '08. so a couple months after. >> right. so two months after you retired. >> did it not occur to you, were there no alarm bells ringing to remind you that you had actually been investigating news international, albeit in an oversight role? and we've heard the various roles that you've had. that you knew exactly what was happening with regard to the investigation. you knew that there was items that had had not been properly looked into it. did it not occur to you that you should go to the very people you were investigating, especially as we've now heard from both
8:21 am
assistant commissioner yates and peter clarke that they were most uncooperative in respect of the investigation that was being conducted? >> yes. [inaudible] okay, as part of news international, i knew no one at the times at that sort of level. shortly before the queen's honors list, so there was no love lost there at all. you know, looking back at it you might say the point you're alluding to there is they're part of the same stable, but i just didn't see that. i was seen by the editor and the deputy editor, and i didn't know them from adam, and i was put through the paces on asking why i wanted to do that, and that's how i took it. you know, the other point, really, is that, um, you know, i can actually -- sorry. any hint of any sort of, you know, in their back pocket like
8:22 am
that is unfounded. i refute that. in terms of the investigation, you heard from other witnesses even if i had that motive, or motives that had been suggested, i had no ability to change direction at all. >> right. keep the motives for just a second. but just in respect of this, are you satisfied that you should continue to write this column for the times bearing in mind what has now come out, that an investigation over which you had oversight had resulted in the so many victims of hacking who had not been contacted, so much criminality? are you satisfied that you should continue, or should you actually give up this column even though it's temporary? >> i think perhaps that's a private conversation with them. >> ems? >> do you not think i should have that as a private conversation with the editorial team at the times rather than share any thought i have now in a sort of public -- >> well, you're in a select committee considering very important matters, so it's something that -- >> it's something, i can say,
8:23 am
it's something that i think all parties should be alive to, and i think the decision needs to be made, you know, with both parties privately, and that's -- >> so you would prefer to be suspended or dismissed rather than you saying, i'm sorry, at the moment because of what's happened, i think i shouldn't continue with my column? >> >> if i get suspended or dismissed, then i hope i would get grounds for that, because i don't think identify done anything -- i've done anything wrong. >> but sure hi you are a voluntary part of this arrangement, and has it crossed your mind that's given what happened you shouldn't really be involved -- >> all i'm saying, chairman, is this. i think it's more appropriate when you contracted together to have that as a private conversation, and i just want to have that as a private conversation with them. >> well, i'm sure you'll get plenty of opportunity. last question from me, it is right that during your investigation you continued to have private dinners and meetings with news international, that is correct,
8:24 am
isn't it? >> absolutely. i am the person who actually put it out there in the public domain. i made no secret of that at all. they weren't the only people i did. i had a national responsibility for fratpo around media. i can tell you now that any suggestion or hint that these were cozy, candle-lit dinners where, you know, state secrets were shared is rubbish. actually, they were businesslike, there was never on my own, which i think i put in the public domain. >> [inaudible] >> communication. and they were businesslike. >> yes. but at any of those dinners, which you do regularly or you did regularly with them, did you raise the concerns that mr. clarke has raised with the committee today that they were being totally uncooperative with the very investigation that you had oversight -- did you ever say to them, hang on, friends -- >> well, colleagues. >> colleagues, between the starter and the main course, why
8:25 am
are you not cooperating with peter clarke? >> well, i'd have to check the dates of these, but, um, one other thing, of course, is that if we'd had regular contact -- and we did, and to be honest with you news international, when we had the bombings, were really cooperative and helped us around certainly 21-7 and the images that were blasted around the front pages, and it helped us catch the culprit. it would be more suspicious if you canceled contact than keeping arm's length in which you were trying to engender good working relationships and support. so it was quite strange because, and i would have been aware that they were being investigated, they hadn't shown any, to my knowledge, any obstruction at all. and it was like either side of the table, i know something you -- >> [inaudible] >> sorry? >> you done accept that there was obstruction? >> what i'm saying is the timing. i'm aware there was obstruction.
8:26 am
my recollection, chairman, is that -- [inaudible] i'm sure is when it was all going on. and it's professional, isn't it? if answer was on the table, i know something you don't know, i ain't going to tell you. and i didn't even know when the door went in on the news of the world. so, therefore, peter's already said it was important for the integrity of the investigation he kept everything very tight. >> yes. but just to clear up the last issue which is in "the new york times" today, allegations that there was some kind of deal done because of your personal life which is a matter of public record, why you resigned the metro. >> yeah. >> and that they, basically, would not attack you if you, um, supported them in this information? >> would you like to, on the record -- >> well, these are all terribly grubby suggestions. and one's got to say that -- two things, really. firstly n that article it suggested that my phone was hacked. that's news to me.
8:27 am
and if they did hack it, all they'd hear about that is a shopping list at the time. there was nothing other more suspicious than that. >> was your phone hacked or not? >> >> i haven't got a clue. >> they haven't told you? >> well, you are on the list. >> am i? >> well, apparently. >> i don't know. i really don't know. and if i am, so be it. because i've got nothing to hide at all. like i said, the shopping list would be on there. my second point, around, you know, the motives and all that kind of deals in the background with, we've already heard. even if i had a motive that was unethical, and i didn't, what is my -- how could i have ever stopped a line of investigation or driven one any way, shape or form? the i didn't. i couldn't. peter would never let me. and be if i'd ever done that, peter or the sio would have been on me like a rash saying what are you doing? >> all this sounds more like
8:28 am
clouseau rather than columbar bow. you signed deals -- >> well, i'm not investigated -- >> peter didn't tell you. >> eve made the point -- i've made the point, chairman, i don't know the timeline. if those dinners went on, then fine. but my recollection is those dinners happened before the arrest occurred. and that is an important point to make. >> yes, thank you. mark. >> setting aside the dinner, both you as the officer in charge and the then-dpp who we're told was consulted about the legal advice that limited the state's investigation are both now working for news international. have you any idea as to how that looks to the mix? >> it could look bad if there was some -- [inaudible] [laughter] >> we all think it looks bad.
8:29 am
>> what i'm saying is if there was something behind that that could be evidence that as a result of that relationship things have been done unethically, they are -- [inaudible] but you know what? i can't think of anything in the background where the line's been crossed or i've done anything wrong as a result of being employed by the times. and if i go back in time, if i jump to another publication, we probably wouldn't all be here now. i jumped the other way, and that's where we are. >> julian hubbard. >> [inaudible] quite credible. we've been trying to understand why, very clear evidence the scope of the investigation was simply too narrow. a decision was made, which i think we all think was incorrect, to make it very narrow. you were reporting, and we're trying to understand -- >> who? >> >> he was reporting to you, sorry. we're trying to understand why nobody looked to the account,
8:30 am
why in a higher role you didn't suggest anything. so we're trying to understand why this odd decision was made. you wanted to be a journalist, you were having regular interactions, you might be interested in the idea of having a connection? i've no idea, you clearly wanted to be a journalist for a long time. do you understand why everybody is so concerned that somewhere along the line somebody failed to think this should be looked over, and one of the people that could be then seems to have all these other connections? >> well, okay. but don't beat me up for being up front with you and honest. you know? i'm, i'm saying to you exactly what my aspirations have been and, therefore, when i retired, i saw that as an opportunity for a second career. there's nothing more untoward than that. ,and in terms of the decisions made by the investigation, you've heard from peter as to what decisions he made. and i'm ultimately, because i
8:31 am
was the boss of the special operations, although not involved in a day-to-day basis, understanding the decisions that were made in the decision log, you know, i also believe responsibility stops at my door. and, therefore, i've always said, you know -- >> what do you understand by led the information? >> peter's been very clear about on a day-to-day basis he was investigating. my command along with lots of other things that were going on at the same time were involved -- >> we know about, we know about -- >> fine. >> [inaudible] >> that's all. >> and in terms of, excuse me, as i'm telling it, the rules are very close. any source of any gratuity, any meal has to be recorded. >> and it was. >> and any interaction you had with any journalist was recorded, and we will find that on no case were you -- with these gentlemen? >> not to my knowledge. >> okay. michael evans. >> you, mr. hayman, you were having dinners with journalists.
8:32 am
that in and of itself is not necessarily improper. but you were having dinner with journalists, were you not, whilst they were being investigated by scotland yard? that is improper, is it snot. >> well -- is it not? >> well, put yourself in my shoes. we've got to go back to see what the timeline was and what happened when, and i can't remember that -- >> you can't remember whether you had dinner? >> no, i can remember. hang on, i can't remember the time that happened in realization to what was going on in that investigation. but i absolutely agree with what you're saying. i'm sure there was a time when they were being investigated that may have happened. now, the judgment is there's no way i'm ever, ever going to disclose -- >> well, forgive me. you say you would never disclose it. you have made a judgment call to
8:33 am
accept hospitality from people who you are investigating for criminal offenses. that's correct, isn't it? >> yes. >> so you think that's an appropriate course of action to have taken? >> well, just if you let me finish, the alternative judgment is to say, no, let's not do that and make some excuses. you know, i discussed that with a senior colleague who was there at the time -- >> which senior college? >> it was the direct every of communications. >> who is this person? what's his name? >> hang on. it's gone from be me, actually. >> well -- gone his name? >> dick -- [inaudible] >> who? >> dick. and not to have had that dinner, i think, would have been potentially more suspicious than to have it -- >> suspicious? [laughter] >> well, i don't know why you're laughing. >> because we're astonished. >> be well, i'm sorry, i'm very
8:34 am
sorry, but i'm trying to share with you the thinking at the time, and all i can say to you is this, that we never, ever would have had a conversation that compromised the investigation. >> mr. hayman, you can also, can you not, during the course of a dinner discuss police tactics in the general? >> no. >> it is possible for you to do that? >> no. >> well, of course it's possible because you're aware of police tactics. >> no, absolutely not. >> you're not aware of police tactics? >> i'm not what i said. what i'm saying is there's no way that was the purpose of that meeting. there was no way we were going through operational stuff. it's just ridiculous. >> thank you. mr. winnik. >> when mr. clarke said he was looking into be phone matters, news international was hostile. when you were in charge of the inquiry in 2006-'07, you were in
8:35 am
charge of -- >> in this charge of what inquiry? >> phone tapping. >> what do you mean in charge? >> you had oversight. >> [inaudible] >> well, aye not splitting hair, i'm just making -- >> let's make it quite clear. you were in overall charge of the inquiry into the news of the world phone hacking event of 2006-'7. you're not disputing that? >> it was in my command. >> you're not disputing that? >> no. >> good. >> [inaudible] but if news international was so hostile originally, what sort of inquiry could you have undertaken overall of responsibility when they offered you a job a year later afterwards? >> well, it was about two years later. i must admit, you know, they were a different part of the stable. you know, the times as far as i was concerned, you know, that wasn't as part of news international. it was a big outfit, of course, but it wasn't news of the world with. >> it was one organization --
8:36 am
[inaudible] i must put it to you, mr. hayman, that many people must come to the conclusion that your inquiry which you conducted overall responsibility was not strong in any way, was not meant to be strong and, in fact, you should apologize for what occurred. >> well, i think you've heard from peter that, you know, this wasn't the sunday football team turning out in the premiership. this was the best thing that i ever had. you know? peter clarke has got, his reputation as an investigator is tenacious. you know, he got on with it, he kept his cards very chose to his chest because he didn't want any compromise, and his team below him, you know, they've imprisoned many terrible, dangerous member. you'd always want him on your team sheet. you wouldn't want him on the subs bench. so i'm not quite sure who else i could have gone to.
8:37 am
they performed, i believe, to the best of their ability. >> you believe it was adequate? >> well, you've made your own judgment on that. >> [inaudible] >> i know you have. >> michael. oh, sorry. nicole la black wood. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i feel a little bit like i've fallen through the rabbit hole. you said this original investigation no stone was left unturned, and something which this committee is rather unsure about is exactly why there was a decision, um, not to have an exhaustive, um, analysis of the 11,000 documents which were in the possession of the police from 2006. >> sure. >> and why there was, um, no assessment of any additional victims who might have been identified in that or additional, um, perpetrators. >> yep. >> in can you explain to the committee your role in that decision and your assessment of that role? >> well, i certainly back in --
8:38 am
i've listened to, and i've picked up the mood of the committee, and i can see where you're coming from on that. i had no involvement in that decision, peter's made that clear. there were people who went through it, those pages, but they probably went through it with the parameters set by the information. >> [inaudible] that's the point. >> no, it wasn't -- >> you made the decision yourself -- >> he said that, yeah. >> he came to have meetings with you -- >> sure. >> -- at which point he would have discussed his portfolios, investigations i assume, and would have discussed whether he was going to continue with his investigation or not at some point. and you have no recollection of discussing the implications of widespread phone hacking within the media? >> um, he's -- you're absolutely right, he would come to me on a regular basis, and we would talk in very general terms about it. he, you know, i think the structure was -- [inaudible] they would be working, the sio
8:39 am
would be working very closely with the cps who obviously set in the direction of the legal advise that was there. so on the basis of his briefings there, yeah, i would take what his judgments and decisions that he made, and i have to say him give others here, he stood up and explained exactly what his thinking was -- >> [inaudible] he met you on a daily basis, he said. >> i guess so, yeah. >> you can't remember meeting him daily? >> well, okay, yes. daily. >> you were aware he was conducting this investigation. >> of course, yes. >> and you have no thinking about the priority level that should be assigned to this investigation 1234. >> he would come to me with what he saw as the priorities and resources available, and without going back to what the decision log says, i would imagine i would endorse it, yeah. >> but you have no thoughts of your own? >> other than -- i can't go back to what the discussions were at the time, but the fact we are where we are now, i would have endorsed what he said.
8:40 am
>> steve mccabe. we need to hurry, colleagues. we have one final witness. >> why do you think further investigations into this affair could be a waste of public money? >> sorry, can you repeat -- >> well, i was just looking at your quote. you said you don't believe a judicial review will reveal anything more than has already been revealed by my successor, it could actually end up being a waste of public money. >> when did i say that? [inaudible conversations] >> do you think it's a good idea to have the most detailed investigation of this or no? >> i'll tell you what, when you look back at what we know now, i mean, this is a horror story. people are now going through the pain second time around as victims, just appalling. the one thing i think publicly has been announced recently
8:41 am
which, you know, peter's already said and i'm up for this is that we must, we must have a judge-led public -- >> okay. but you don't recall what -- >> no -- [inaudible conversations] >> i have only one other question. why did you -- [inaudible] when he persisted with his allegations? and we do have a date for this. >> because -- yeah. [inaudible conversations] >> no, i remember it. i remember it. >> do you remember what you said? >> yeah, i can. >> there was absolutely no evidence from that initial investigation of his phone being hacked? you don't believe a judicial review will reveal anything more? >> [inaudible] >> do you regret saying that? >> well, the terms of it were pretty poor. >> so do you owe the lord an apology? >> yeah, of course, i did. >> you also said if i prove to be wrong -- [inaudible] >> yeah, well -- >> [inaudible] >> thank you. lorraine fullbrook. >> thank you, mr. chairman.
8:42 am
mr. hayman, don't you understand that the public see you as a geezer who was in charge of a phone hacking inquiry conducted by the news of the world who resigned from the force amongst allegations of expenses claims and allegations of improper conduct with two females who has told this committee today that you had no knowledge of editors or -- [inaudible] at the time while posing up to the executive level of news international and received, amazingly, received an award for this investigation? >> not for this investigation. >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> sorry, sorry. i have to apologize. >> apart from that -- can you answer -- >> but this is a disaster, this inquiry. an absolute disaster. under your direction. >> it's, um, under my watch, it's in my command, absolutely. >> absolutely, it was a
8:43 am
disaster? >> well, at the time -- and i think peter's made this point -- is that everything possible that they were able to do given the resources and the parameters they had set was done. and i stand by that, you know? and peter has as well. >> [inaudible] >> well, what we know right now it looks very lame. and i think what's happened is we've had more time to do it, more mftion's come out, news of the world has given us some material we department have at the time. peter's gone through the correspondence he had, and he's decided, you know, he was frustrated as i was with that correspondence, so that's where we are. >> so it's a disaster? >> well, it's not a disaster. two people pled guilty and went to prison. >> you don't think this is a disaster when 11,000 pagings of material was curse orally scanned and nothing came from it? that eight hours of investigation was begin to this review? >> eight hours of investigation? >> the yatess review.
8:44 am
>> oh, i don't know about those. >> you've never heard of -- >> of course i've heard. that's not for me to comment. >> that's what mrs. fullbrook, she was trying to put it all and around -- >> the i think at the time given the premise of the set and the reading that was done of the material, you know, at that time was proportionate and within those parameters -- >> but now do you think you have reason to apologize? is. >> apologize, you know, i want to be sure that when i stand there, i'm apologizing for either something that i have done wrong -- >> on your watch. >> i personally have encountered or someone in my team has done. and i'd want to know what it is that people have done wrong for us to apologize. >> thank you. [inaudible] >> thank you. two questions arrive from what you have just said. you've just said mr. clarke said earlier that you were under resource constraints, that you had other distractions at the time and that you set yourselves parameters purpose this, okay? can i ask you about this as your
8:45 am
new career as a journalist? because you have chosen to write under the heading an article that you penned in the july 2009 under the heading when your recollection was, apparently, better than it is now under the heading, news of the world investigation was no half-hearted affair. you wrote, in the original inquiry, my heart sank was told that the accusations came from the palace. this was not the time for a half-hearted investigation. we put our best detectives on the case and left no stone unturned as the threat of officials breathed down our neck. the guardian has said, this was subsequently in 2009, that it understands the police between 2,000 and 3,000 individuals had their mobile phone hacked into, far more than was ever officially admitted during the investigation and prosecution of clyde goodman. yet my recollection is different. as i recall, the list put together in records ran to several hundred names.
8:46 am
of that these a small number, perhaps a handful -- [inaudible] had there been evidence of tampering in the other cases, that would have been investigated as would the slightest hint that others were involved. >> yeah. >> yeah? would you say that that article -- [inaudible] in the light of the last couple of weeks? [laughter] >> when it was written it was on the basis of -- i remember it was command, i think office commander john mcdowell. he came into my office and came at me with a number of pages, and it was, i think, something in the region of eight or nine. and my recollection was that briefing to me there was three groups of names. there was ostensibly a contact list which in it would, obviously, you'd not expect that from anyone, an address book with numbers of people.
8:47 am
i believe that the second sort of column or list was a shorter number where i think my recollection was there might have been pin numbers that were known. my understanding is on the legal advice probably for the third category of people where i think the technology approved that they used the pin number and the telephone number to access the voicemail. so my understanding of that time of writing that was that we'd gone from a long list of contact numbers down into a list of people of which some had pin numbers and the list had been accessed and hacked. so -- >> can we just come to this a bit? >> sure, yeah. >> because that was written in 2009. i was asking about what you knew at the time. >> that's what i knew. >> at the time were now told the names of other individuals who had been hacked into related to the material which had been obtained in all the files? >> no. >> you were not given the names
8:48 am
of any other individuals? >> no. >> to your knowledge, there were no other names of individuals in the documents -- >> the only names that i -- i can only remember a handful of names of people. and it was also, and the briefing i was getting, was the people were prosecutable and that cps were able to take them to court. >> well, there were people who subsequently discovered, and i think mr. taylor was one of them, whose names were amongst the evidence which were in your possession. um, which, apparently, had been redacted in certain cases when the evidence both acting privately on behalf of the individuals concerned who were never approached by you or any other officers at the time. is that right? >> don't know. >> you don't know? did it come as a surprise to you when it turned out that mr. taylor, apparently, took private proceedings to discover these documents and other documents and discovered that he, apparently, had been hacked into and was the subject of contemplation by news of the world? that was never investigated? >> i don't know.
8:49 am
>> were other journalists investigationed at news of the world besides the ones targeted? >> i think peter in his evidence asked for information about the journalists, and i think in his evidence he said that wasn't forthcoming. >> you said you were presented -- [inaudible] names. whose were those names? >> can't remember. >> were they names of people that came to light -- >> no -- >> were there names of other people? who were the names that were presented you, where did they come from? >> i was trying to associate, explain to you, i recall not in any real detail, but i just remember john coming in. he said these are the names not necessarily from 11,000. it wasn't until later that i even remembered that. but it was from names that they'd collected from either the searches of the premises or from other sources. and that was -- i can't remember the names on it. but i probably didn't even pay much attention to it. it was just in, you know, going through them --
8:50 am
>> thank you. dr. huppert for a final question. >> i'm happy you can help this committee. you've told us you've behaved totally honestly, you remember some things and others. >> yeah. >> there was somebody who had a similar connection to yours, but did talk to news international, whatever it might be. that it wasn't at all entirely innocent. how could this committee possibly tell the difference between, from what you said so far? is there anything you could say that could persuade us that your version is correct and we shouldn't be worried about -- >> because i think what you've got to do is you can speculate and what have you, but you've got to actually then be able to show that someone can turn a motive into an outcome. and it's got the ability to do that. >> they would have to show that somebody could get a well-paid job with news international -- >> i thought i got from your
8:51 am
question was through those motives you sort of describe, you know, what could i have done on a daily basis to either take it into -- [inaudible] or stop or influence, and i couldn't -- i had no -- [inaudible] be. >> [inaudible] please make it very quick. nicola blackwood. >> i'm very confident that this session will be watched by victims of hacking. >> sure. >> and i'm also confident that much of the evidence that you've given would sound more familiar coming from tabloid journal its than from being a police officer. and i wonder if you would accept the fact that the original police investigation failed those victims and whether you would have something you would like to say to the victims now. >> well, peter, i would join what i heard from peter, and i would say, of course, you you k, i've said already in evidence that it's absolutely appalling that victims of crime have gone through that terrible experience and where we find ourselves now
8:52 am
today having this pull over into their private lives. it's absolutely appalling. so that is a matter of absolute regret. >> would you like to take this opportunity to apologize to them now? >> >> i think i just have. i do apologize. >> thank you. lorraine fullbrook. >> thank you, chairman. mr. hayman, while a police officer did you ever receive payment from any news organization? >> can good god. absolutely not. i can't believe you suggested that. >> lots of people did. >> well, come on. i'm not letting you get away with that. absolutely no way. i can say to you -- >> mr. hayman? >> no, come on, chairman, that's not fair. >> order, order. mrs. fullbrook is not getting away with anything. >> that's a very -- >> it is the same question she's put to all witnesses. >> -- [inaudible] additional comment? hang on. [inaudible conversations] >> be order. order. >> that's a tackle on my integrity.
8:53 am
>> order. members of committee are allowed to ask any questions they wish. >> okay. >> it is a fair question to put because it is in the public domain at the moment about other police officers. she's put her question, you've given an answer. the answer is an unequivocal no. >> absolutely. >> thank you. [inaudible] >> how many officers and staff did you have on this 2006 investigation? >> i'm going to have to rely on what peter described. >> how many was it necessary? i think we can refer to -- >> yeah. i can't remember what peter said. >> [inaudible] >> yeah. what peter said is what we had. >> mr. hayman, i normally sum up people's evidence, but on this occasion i think your evidence speaks for itself. [laughter] thank you very much for coming. >> thank you. >> can we have our final witness be head of operation meeting sue akers. >> the last witness at hearing is sue akers who's leading the
8:54 am
current investigation into phone hacking by british news organizations. >> order. could we go straight into our next witness? detective deputy commissioner akers, could i start with an apology for keeping you waiting, and the journalists clamoring over you. there we are. my apologies. we know how extraordinarily busy you are, we are extremely grateful to you for coming here. i would start with a general statement to members of the committee and others watching. we will not ask you about operational matters. we know, obviously, these are very sensitive, you're in the middle of an investigation, and we appreciate the fact that you've come here to tell us about the process that you're adopting. please, do tell us after the evidence we've heard so far that there is a thorough inquiry going on headed by you and what the process is, what your ambitions are for this inquiry.
8:55 am
>> um, i'm very happy to do so. can i just, first of all, say i'm very conscious that all of you are relying on a document from "the guardian" and are quoting it as something that operation waiting has provided to "the guardian." can i just set the record straight? i think the document you're referring to is on the web site. >> yes. >> air only seen that -- i've only seen that because it was alerted to me by somebody who complained that we had leaked information they didn't want in the public domain, and since looking at that i've now established that it is the work of a journalist who is putting matters together, some of which are on -- because people have gone on public record as saying they're victims, some of which is just pure investigative journalism. some may be because, um, matters have been leaked to them. but that document is a compilation of those various things and does not come from us and, therefore -- >> that is extremely helpful, thank you.
8:56 am
>> -- it contains inaccuracies, and i don't want you to rely on that. >> it's very kind of you, and we're most grateful. going on to your current inquiry, less please tell us why this inquiry was set up. >> um, i have to say i think the catalyst was the civil actions brought by various members. as a result of those civil actions brought by individuals, there was a vast amount of disclosure that was requested from news international. and in connection with that disclosure to civil actions, they came across the three mails, and that is in the public domain that were then passed to us in january where it showed that there was another member of the organization that was under or suspicion. and that was the catalyst then for the new inquiry to be started, um, in specialist crime directorate which is where i am, and we set up an inquiry
8:57 am
consisting of experienced detectives and people experienced in, um, documents, documentation and administration in association with a major inquiry. >> indeed. how many full-time officers do you have working on this? >> well, i think we said 45, and i regularly review the resources, and i will flex those if we need more for a specific, um, for operational reasons, then i'm happy to enlarge them. equally, if we find that we don't need as many as that, then i'd be returning them to other, um, parts of the organization. >> i'm not sure whether you were present during the previous evidence -- >> i have been. no, no, i've heard it all. >> we're not going to go back over everything that's happened, but i think one of the concerns of this committee is the documents that were originally seen by the first inquiry,
8:58 am
reviewed by mr. yates. which you now have in your possession, i assume. >> uh-huh. >> do you have those -- the documents in the bin bags? >> we have all the origin alter that was gathered in the '05-'06 investigation known as operation -- [inaudible] plus additional material we've gathered since we started our investigation at the end of january. >> and you are reviewing that evidence and investigating it in a thorough and complete way? is. >> yes. um, would it be helpful if i kind of enlarge on our approach to the victims? >> please. that would be very help. >> um, obviously, we thought very long and hard about this because you've heard the difficulties you get into when you are trying to use the criminal law to define what is a victim. and i took a very pragmatic approach which was to say that regardless of whether the
8:59 am
criminal law said they were or they weren't, there were a vast number of people who feel they've had their privacy invaded and have been violated. and it seemed, um, it just seemed the right thing to treat them in exactly the same way as you would do somebody who strictly meets the criteria of a victim in concurrence with the law. so, in other words, there are people who have had their messages listened to that have been left under ripa. that wouldn't constitute an offense against them, it would constitute an offense against the person whose phone the message was left on. but the person whose messages they are feels e ally violated. >> indeed. >> so we've taken a very broad, a very broad approach. we've also given a commitment that as we get through and be identify the various people that are named in the material,

Today in Washington
CSPAN July 12, 2011 6:00am-9:00am EDT

News/Business. News.

TOPIC FREQUENCY Us 21, John Yates 11, Mr. Clarke 10, Mr. Hayman 7, Andy Hayman 6, Peter Clarke 6, Peter 5, Scotland 3, Akers 3, Goodman 3, Mr. Taylor 2, Neville 2, Mr. Bryan 2, Steve Mccabe 2, Mrs. Fullbrook 2, Lorraine Fullbrook 2, New York 2, U.k. 2, London 2, Investigationed 1
Network CSPAN
Duration 03:00:00
Scanned in San Francisco, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Channel 100 (651 MHz)
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 704
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color

disc Borrow a DVD of this show
info Stream Only
Uploaded by
TV Archive
on 7/12/2011